I thought this final point by DDiligen was worthy of posting by itself.

Disclaimer: Not sure if DDiligen is accurate with his thoughts.

Comment #5 -
There is an important info I wait to the end to discuss. Careful reader may noticed it already : the 336 and 749
patents have the same examiner Eng; David Y. So, now we have to ask a few questions -
Examiner Eng prosecuted 749 patent first and 495 was cited in the reference. Is it possible for him -
   A. Not knowing 495 and 155 are closely related cousins, and
   B. Not knowing 155 are possible prior art for 749 when he prosecute 749 patent, and
   C. Not knowing 155 are possible prior art for 336 (749's brother) when he prosecute 336 patent?
What I'm trying to say here is that the accusations from PUBPAT to say references were wrongly cited during the
previous examination may backfire. This may make PUBPAT look stupid from eyes of patent experts.
Another important info is the "Other References" cited "Intel 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual, 1986.."
as reference of 749  patent. Examiner have to know the in and out of Intel and other major macroprocessor vendors
prior arts before allowing the 336 and 749 patents. It shows the credibility of the examiner and PTO patent prosecution.
In light of Intel's technical advance of producing widely used 80386 microprocessor, 749 was granted patent, and 336 was granted 3 years later. One have to ask, how good the chances for USPTO to OK  the PUBPAT request?
Or, even if the request is granted, how slim the chances for USPTO to declare the 366 patent invalid?